FREE-TRADE AND THE SUGAR-BOUNTIES.
[To TEE M.08 OF THE SPECTATOR." J SIR,—Your reference to me on December 17th entitles me to ask you to let me point out to your readers in what respect your views in connection with the question of foreign bounties appear to use erroneous. It is true that we are benefited by the increased prosperity of other countries, and by their carrying out sound commercial legislation. But I maintain that this is not the case when the departure from it confers a great benefit upon us.
Let no suppose that in some foreign country a railway is pro- jected which would be of great use to us by carrying commo- dities destined for our markets, and that the Government of that country were to promise a subvention which would enable this railway to be constructed. According to your views, if we thought the money so promised might be more productively employed, we should beg that it might not be given, as "our wish was to see all parte of the world produce what they can produce under the most advantageous conditions." Sorely this would be very foolish on our part. Yet we do the same when we entreat foreign Governments to withdraw from us the annual subsidy of two millions which, with unconscious generosity, they pay to us. This proceeding, however, is justified by some because it is an economic error to prop up one particular industry at the expense of the public.
I am glad that Sir Louis Mallet objects to retaliatory duties, and that he has so clearly explained the difficulty of imposing them.—I am, Sir, &c.,
South AvAlley Street, December 22nd. F. LEVESON GOwER.
[The supposed railway would only be a temporary loss, and might be a great future gain, to the country making it. Bounties which disturb gravely the natural course of production and trade, involve, even at first, much more loss to us than they confer gain upon us.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
